Wakilii

E.L.T Kiyimba-kaggwa v Hajji Katende AbduNasser (Civil Suit No. 2109 of 1984)

High Court · [1985] UGHC 1 · 1985 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction to restrain defendant from carrying out work on suit premises
Decision
Temporary injunction issued restraining defendant from carrying out work on the suit premises

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 19 citing cases on record, 14 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that the plaintiff satisfied all conditions for a temporary injunction. The plaintiff established a prima facie case with probability of success, having applied for lease renewal and possessing evidence of developments on the land. The plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury from the defendant's cultivation activities that could not adequately be compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff who was in possession. Application granted with costs to be costs in the cause.

Outcome

Temporary injunction issued restraining defendant from carrying out work on the suit premises

Facts

The plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the suit premises under expired leases that had not been cancelled. The plaintiff applied for renewal of his lease and had made substantial developments on the land. The defendant claimed to have been offered a five-year lease by the Uganda Land Commission for the same land. The Commissioner of Lands and Surveys inspected the land, listed the plaintiff's developments, and recommended to the Uganda Land Commission that the plaintiff's lease be extended for another five years, noting it was against natural justice and the Constitution to lease land with existing developments to another person. The defendant brought a tractor and began cultivating the land. The defendant's development plans differed from those of the plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the applicant showed a prima facie case with probability of success.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable by damages.
  4. Where the balance of convenience lay in granting or refusing the temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Costs of the application to be costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Purpose and Scope
The purpose of granting a temporary injunction is to preserve matters in status quo until the question to be investigated in the suit can finally be disposed of.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Prima Facie Case
The conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction are: first, the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success; secondly, such injunction will not normally be granted unless the appellant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages; thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide the application on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Meaning
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means that the injury must be a substantial or material one, that is, one that cannot adequately be compensated for by damages.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Test for Grant — Critique of Prima Facie Case Standard
In obiter dicta, the court questioned whether requiring a prima facie case with probability of success is appropriate for interlocutory injunctions, given that evidence at that stage is incomplete and untested, and suggested that a more realistic test would be whether there is a serious question to be tried rather than a prima facie case with probability of success.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Buikwa Estate Coffee Works Ltd v Lutabi (High Court Civil Suit No. 700 of 1961)
  • East African Industries v Trufoods [1972] EA 420
  • Giolla v Cassman Brown Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • Noormohamood Jammohamood v Kassamli Virji Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 24
  • Nsubuga v Mutawe [1974] EA 487
  • Rwenzori Tea Co Ltd v Kolsall (1956-57) 8 ULR 204
  • Seargent v Partel (1949) EACA 63
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504

Cases citing this judgment (17)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

E.L.T Kiyimba-kaggwa v Hajji Katende AbduNasser (Civil Suit No. 2109 of 1984) [1985] UGHC 1 (23 April 1985)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.